RFC: scope and borrowing

[Manu via Digitalmars-d]

On 22 September 2014 23:38, Kagamin via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 22 September 2014 at 11:20:57 UTC, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
>> It is a useful tool, but you can see how going to great lengths to write
>> this explosion of paths is a massive pain in the first place, let alone
>> additional overhead to comprehensively test that it works... it should
>> never have been a problem to start with.
>>
>
> Hmm... even if the code is syntactically succinct, it doesn't necessarily
> mean lower complexity or that it requires less testing. You provided an
> example yourself: you have generic code, which works for values, but not
> for references. You need a lot of testing not because the features have
> different syntax, but because they work differently, so code, which works
> for one thing, may not work for another.
>

Eliminating static branches containing different code has a very
significant reduction in complexity. It's also DRY.
I don't think I provided that example... although it's certainly true that
there are semantic differences that may lead to distinct code paths, it is
my experience that in the majority of cases, if I just had the ref-ness as
part of the type, the rest would follow naturally. I have never encountered
a situation where I would feel hindered by ref as part of the type.
I think it's also easier to get from ref in the type to the raw type than
the reverse (which we must do now); We are perfectly happy with Unqual!T
and things like that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140923/89a73ae7/attachment-0001.html>